After the Referendum…

Political developments around the ‘No’ vote in Scotland last Thursday have highlighted the salience of two recent papers published by The Constitution Society, both available online:

After the Referendum: Options For a Constitutional Convention, by Alan Renwick, was produced in partnership with Unlock Democracy. The pamphlet argued that, whatever the result of Scotland’s independence referendum, careful constitutional thinking would be needed. It examined how such constitution-making should take place. It set out the options, gathered evidence from around the world on how these options might work, and weighed the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. It concluded that constitutional proposals in the UK should best be developed by a convention comprising a mixture of ordinary members of the public and politicians; and that these proposals should be put to a referendum. This approach, the paper argued, offers the best route to high-quality debate, stronger democratic engagement, and, ultimately, deeper legitimacy for our governing structures.

‘If Scotland says ‘No’: What Next For The Union?’ examined the implications of a ‘No’ vote for the UK constitution. It concluded that a ‘no’ vote would not mean ‘no change’, and that it was very likely that unionist parties would adopt proposals for more devolution. It examined the possible consequences for Scotland and for the Union as a whole. To produce this paper, The Constitution Society brought together three leading think tanks from across the political spectrum to explore these questions and propose some possible answers. With contributions from Professor Michael Keating, Magnus Linklater, Jim Gallagher and Philip Blond, this collaboration with CentreForum, the Fabian Society and ResPublica set the scene for the post-referendum debate.

‘Distinguishing Constitutional Legislation’ paper

In most democratic states, the mechanisms for constitutional change are clearly separated from mechanisms for enacting ‘ordinary’ legislation. They are also designed to make any significant alteration in existing constitutional arrangements a relatively difficult undertaking. In Britain, however, there is no legislative process for constitutional change other than ordinary legislation, nor is there any clear or generally agreed distinction between constitutional and other laws.

The potential shortcomings of this approach have become increasingly evident in the period since 1997, which has been marked by frequent, sometimes hectic, constitutional change. Constitutional modification is now an established part of every government’s legislative programme. If elected governments too often seem to amend these rules in a self-interested way then trust in the legitimacy of the political system may be progressively undermined.

This paper considers the options and proposes a mechanism whereby Parliament could identify and impose the special procedures it deems appropriate for legislation of first-class constitutional importance. It concludes that if Parliament wants to, it has the power to bring about a better approach in this area.

A paper by David R. Howarth (University of Cambridge) and Shona Wilson Stark (Christ’s College, Cambridge) is available online. It breaks new ground in its assessment of the British constitution.

Using interviews with senior UK officials about their views of the rules of recognition, change and adjudication, it concludes that there may be in effect three different constitutions operational in this country.

An abstract follows. The full paper is available on the SSRN website here.

A paper by the founding Director of The Constitution Society, Nat le Roux, is published online today, discussing the background and underlying constitutional tendencies against which the Society was formed in 2009.

The paper expresses the personal views of the author, but provides an insight into the decision to establish the organisation and the problems it was intended to address.

‘Mandates, Manifestos and Coalitions’ paper online

One of the most important assumptions in British politics since 1945 has been the existence of single-party, majority governments deriving their mandates from voters. The hung parliament and subsequent coalition government of 2010 therefore raised some difficult questions about the operation of the democratic system.

If no party enjoyed a parliamentary majority, what sense did it make to speak of mandates? What was the role of manifestos if no party possessed a majority to implement one in full? What was the democratic legitimacy of the comprehensive coalition agreement on public policy goals negotiated by the coalition parties after the election? What is the relationship between manifestos and coalition agreements? Can mandates follow from coalition agreements? Ultimately, is it necessary to rethink the basic relationship between voters, parties and governments in the UK political system?

Thomas Quinn is Senior Lecturer in Government at the University of Essex. His research focuses on British party politics, and he as published on party leadership elections, modernisation in the Labour and Conservative parties, the UK coalition agreement of 2010, and the UK party system.

The Constitution Society is delighted to invite you to the launch of a new pamphlet: ‘Mandates, Manifestos and Coalitions: UK Party Politics after 2010′, by Tom Quinn, Senior Lecturer in Government at the University of Essex. The pamphlet considers the democratic implications of the hung Parliament and coalition government of 2010, asking whether it is necessary to rethink the basic relationship between voters, parties and governments in the UK political system.

The event is organised in conjunction with Graham Allen MP and takes place Tuesday 15th July 3:00-4:30pm in House of Commons, Committee Room 19. The report’s author will speak, with Prof. Vernon Bogdanor of King’s College London responding. Questions from the audience will follow the two speakers.

This will be the first in a series considering different aspects of the UK constitution, intended to feed into the work of the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, chaired by Mr. Allen, on the possibility of codifying the UK constitution.

A hard copy of the report will be available on the afternoon. We plan to film the event for subsequent online distribution.

‘Options For a Constitutional Convention’ paper online

Whatever the result of Scotland’s independence referendum, careful constitutional thinking will be needed. If Scots vote Yes, Scotland will need a new constitution and the rest of the UK will have to rethink its governing structures. Even in the event of a No vote, everyone agrees that the shape of the Union will need to change over the coming years.

This paper examines how such constitution-making should take place. It sets out the options, gathers evidence from around the world on how these options might work, and weighs the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. It concludes that constitutional proposals in the UK should best be developed by a convention comprising a mixture of ordinary members of the public and politicians; these proposals should be put to a referendum. This approach, the paper argues, offers the best route to high-quality debate, stronger democratic engagement, and, ultimately, deeper legitimacy for our governing structures.

The Constitution Society is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Andrew Blick as Director. Based at King’s College London, Andrew has extensive experience working in political, public policy and academic environments. He has written on a wide range of constitutional issues, including special advisers to ministers, the contemporary significance of Magna Carta, the office of Prime Minister and the possibility of codifying the United Kingdom constitution.

Andrew said:

“In the relatively short time since it was established in 2009, The Constitution Society has already become well-established in its field. It has a valuable niche as a provider of astute analysis, taken seriously by the people who count. I am pleased to have the chance to help build on these achievements to date. With the Scottish referendum imminent, followed by a General Election, and possible challenges to the position of the UK within the European Union, it is an exciting period to be working on constitutional issues.”

In his consultancy role at The Constitution Society Andrew will focus on strategic direction, research programmes and dissemination. He will continue as Lecturer in Politics and Contemporary History at King’s.

The Constitution Society is happy to announce the launch of a new paper After the Referendum: Options For a Constitutional Convention. Worked on in conjunction with Unlock Democracy and authored by eminent constitutional expert, Dr Alan Renwick, the paper explores different models for a constitutional convention, citing the importance if Scotland votes ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

To join us for the launch of this paper in Parliament on 29th April with the author, Graham Allan MP and Lord MacLennan, please sign-up here. Physical copies of the report will be available on the night and PDFs will be available for download on the website shortly afterwards.

A summary of the paper is set out below:

Whatever the result of Scotland’s independence referendum, careful constitutional thinking will be needed. If Scots vote Yes, Scotland will need a new constitution and the rest of the UK will have to rethink its governing structures. Even in the event of a No vote, everyone agrees that the shape of the Union will need to change over the coming years. This paper examines how such constitution-making should take place. It sets out the options, gathers evidence from around the world on how those Read more ›

Audio of Lord Steel and Dr Meg Russell discussion on Lords Reform

The Constitution Society was pleased to work with our friends at the Constitution Unit to deliver a high profile discussion on the latest attempts at Lords Reform. Chaired by Dr Ruth Fox from the Hansard Society with Lord Steel and, constitutional expert, Dr Meg Russell, the event was attended by numerous members of the House of Lords and other key stakeholders.

To promote a free and frank discussion questions and comments were raised under the Chatham House Rule, but we are able to provide an audio recording of both Dr Russell’s and Lord Steel’s interventions.

The issue of whether the current bill constitutes a threat to the current model of Commons and Lords relations was addressed by both speakers. The potential for Peers to ‘retire’ from the Lords and stand for election to the Commons was raised by Dr Russell and her article outlining her concerns can be read here.

About Us

ConSoc is an independent, non-party educational foundation which works to promote informed debate about constitutional reform. We take no position on specific reform proposals but advocate better legislative standards and oppose ill-considered, piecemeal change.

Latest Tweets

Videos

‘Judicial Review and the Rule of Law: Who is in Control?’ is the title of our latest pamphlet, which can be downloaded here.

“If Scotland says ‘No’: What next for the Union?” is the title of our latest pamphlet, which can be downloaded here.

‘Risk Management: Government Lawyers and the Provision of Legal Advice within Whitehall’ is the title of our latest pamphlet which can be downloaded here.

Nat le Roux gives evidence to the PCRC on the role and powers of the judiciary in the UK constitution.

Richard Gordon QC at the launch of the report: ‘Select Committees and Coercive Powers – Clarity or Confusion?’

The launch event for The Constitution Society’s new project Young People and the Constitution with Speaker of the House of Commons Rt Hon John Bercow MP. For more information on Young People and the Constitution please visit our YPC page.